3 ms·

> To make this case, you would have to show that education completion rates, drug addition, and criminal behavior are as bad or worse in Finland compared to the

> To make this case, you would have to show that education completion rates, drug addition, and criminal behavior are as bad or worse in Finland compared to the US. No, I wouldn't have to show that, because we're not comparing the percentage of homeless people in Finland against the percentage of homeless people in the U.S. The data point I argued was "homeless rates are going down, and this program has something to do with that". You are implying that homeless rates are going down because education completion rates are high. That's nonsensical. If one metric is constantly high, that doesn't explain why another metric is changing. A proper argument would be "homeless rates are going down because education rates are going up". That argument could make sense (if it were true, which it is not). > Maybe they are doing better at treating the root cause, and because of that their symptomatic treatment can actually help. No, they aren't doing that. As I already explained in my previous comment, Finland's strategy against homelessness is rooted in "Housing first", which is a "treat the symptoms" approach to homelessness, not a "treat the root cause" approach to homelessness.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>No, they aren't doing that. As I already explained in my previous comment, Finland's strategy against homelessness is rooted in "Housing first", which is a "treat the symptoms" approach to homelessness, not a "treat the root cause" approach to homelessness. You are still ignoring the fact that Finland has already cured the root cause. I am implying that education is a pre-requisite for any housing first approach
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  > You are still ignoring the fact that Finland has already cured the root cause. No. If Finland had already cured the root cause, then why did we have homelessness when Housing First was initiated? Again, a steady metric does not explain a changing metric. > I am implying that education is a pre-requisite for any housing first approach No it is not, and that is completely missing the point what "housing first" means. Even the name is intended to contradict your approach. It's not "education first, then housing". It's "housing first", as in, "over here we treat the symptoms not the root cause".

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>No, they aren't doing that. As I already explained in my previous comment, Finland's strategy against homelessness is rooted in "Housing first", which is a "treat the symptoms" approach to homelessness, not a "treat the root cause" approach to homelessness. You are still ignoring the fact that Finland has already cured the root cause. I am implying that education is a pre-requisite for any housing first approach

baobabKoodaa 4y ago
> You are still ignoring the fact that Finland has already cured the root cause. No. If Finland had already cured the root cause, then why did we have homelessness when Housing First was initiated? Again, a steady metric does not explain a changing metric. > I am implying that education is a pre-requisite for any housing first approach No it is not, and that is completely missing the point what "housing first" means. Even the name is intended to contradict your approach. It's not "education first, then housing". It's "housing first", as in, "over here we treat the symptoms not the root cause".